It is rather intuitive to say that thought is reflective of social existence ..., i.e., the historical era, which carries the surviving heritage of the past eras, compounded with current facts and conditions. The same applies to leftist ethics, they are derived from reality, and hence based on what is deemed constructive in former philosophies.

The main pillars of this ethical value system are: Love for one’s people/nation; love for work and for its quality; love for organization; love for developing one’s opposition to oppression, whether national, class, male chauvinistic, religious or political in nature; love for collectiveness and cooperation; love for continuous self-renewal and adapting to modern changes; love for camaraderie and mutual support; love for honesty; love for peace; and last but not least, love for democracy.

“Why don’t you pray?”, I was once abruptly asked, by another prisoner. I reversed the question, asking him:

- Why do you pray?

- For Allah.

- But, does Allah need your prayers?

- No.

- That’s precisely why I do not pray. Neither Allah nor I need my prayers.

- But praying is a duty for the Creator.

- Each one of us can interpret his duties quite differently. I believe my duty is to be faithful to people, struggle for their right causes, uphold the principles of justice, fairness and respect for difference in opinion and belief. Hindus believe in god, but practice their faith rather differently; the same can be said about the Confucians and others. I am personally solidly biased to the scientific school of thought, to the utmost respect for the human mind, and for the right to choose. To confiscate my mind is to snatch away my self-consistency, spiritual core and indeed, my very humanity. This is why I refuse to be indoctrinated into a monolithic school of thought, that, in my opinion, will suppress my freedom of thought and expression.

In fact, the intensive research that I have conducted on the comparative philosophies of the main religions, convinced me beyond doubt that the commonalities between religions are vast. Many stories of the Torah, were heavily influenced by those written thousands of years before in ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Hindu writings. Of course, the same applies to the Christian Bible and the Muslim Koran.

Some fundamental values find their way into most of the major religions. What surprises me, then, is given the above, how could religion possibly be used throughout history as a divisive rather that a unifying philosophy? The belief of any particular group that it, and it alone, has captured The Truth, automatically separates this group from the others, reducing them in the process into just others, less, not yet evolved to recognize The Truth. The obvious consequence is conflict and continuous struggle to sustain or expand the group’s own vision, or mission.

It is important in this context to agree on two fundamental issues:

1. Belief in god is not only practiced by Muslims, but by hundreds of millions of others, in a variety of ways.
   
   
2. There is a huge difference between the Islamic political movement and the Muslim society. The great majority of Muslims are not part of the Islamic movement. Therefore, it is false to claim they are the sole representatives of Islam.

Whereas the Islamic movement interprets Islam to be the Whole Truth, that is suitable for every time and place, and that has an answer for everything in life, we as leftists view things quite differently.

[...] The principle of separation of religion and state authorities, or secularism [...] has been the foundation for the revolutionary progress that occurred in Europe, the U.S. and later Japan. Whereas, the First World has shifted from the eras of the Industrial Revolution to the information [computer/electronic] age, the Islamic World has suffered since the last century stagnation, and a horrifying lack of dynamism.

We have several concerns regarding the ideology and practices of the Islamic movements, in general:

1. Their objection to true democratic principles, despite a few exceptions here and there. In Afghanistan, for instance, bullets have replaced ballots, and the outcome was bloody genocide.
   
   [...] Even in Palestine, despite the points of political intersection of that movement with other secular organizations, and the growth of a democratic stream within these movements, [...] no Islamic organization here has come out publicly and definitively for democracy. On the contrary, we keep hearing that once in power, they shall impose special archaic taxes on non-Muslims, and they will execute those Muslims who have dissented from Islam, given that this latter issue is a very thorny one that cannot be easily decided.
   
   
2. Their vague or often selective position on nationalism, and Arab unity. In general, the Islamic movements have never supported what most Arabs do, the reunification of the Arab nation.
   
   [...] One other major shortcoming they have, is their inability to even suggest a democratic resolution of the conflict with Israel. Is it enough to liberate Palestine, without responding to the critical question: What about the more than four million Jews in Palestine? Will they be thrown out ... or what? This is a racist formula, and it borrows from the very racism that was not only an organic pillar of the Zionist movement, but the main driving force behind their campaign to exile our people and take over our land. We should never counter racism with racism, simply it is unethical.